Download
considerations regarding the benchmarking of ipr support services for smes n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Considerations regarding the benchmarking of IPR support services for SMEs PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Considerations regarding the benchmarking of IPR support services for SMEs

Considerations regarding the benchmarking of IPR support services for SMEs

172 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

Considerations regarding the benchmarking of IPR support services for SMEs

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Considerations regarding the benchmarking of IPR support services for SMEs Alfred Radauer (Senior Consultant) MEETING OF EXPERT GROUP FOR DEFINING THE SCOPE AND THE METHODOLOGY FOR NATIONAL SURVEYS/STUDIES ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND SMES Geneva - WIPO, Sep 17 2009

  2. Some IPR-related projects (especially benchmarking) • „Benchmarking National and Regional Support Services in the Field of Industrial and Intellectual Property“, commissioned by EC, DG Enterprise and Industry (PRO Inno paper no. 4) (Radauer et al. 2007) • „Support Services in the Field of IPR for SMEs in Switzerland - A Review“, commissioned by the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (Radauer & Streicher 2008) • „On the growing significance of IPR for German SMEs and the diminishing importance of physical assets“, commissioned by the German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology (Blind, Cuntz, Köhler & Radauer (2008)) • „Supporting the improvement of existing and development of new IPR support services for Swiss SMEs“, on behalf of Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (Radauer 2009) • “Transatlantic IPR Collaboration – An explorative study into the transatlantic dimension on the problem of counterfeiting and piracy”, funded by the European Commission, DG RELEX • NEW: “IPR for South Eastern Europe: Development of five innovative service actions”, funded through the SEE programme, subcontractor of funding agency AWS in Austria

  3. EU Study “SME-IIP” in a nutshell • Aim: The study aims to identify, analyse, classify and benchmark support services in the area of IPR for SMEs • The project was carried out in three phases: • Phase 1: Identification and analysis of existing support services • Phase 2: Benchmarking of relevant support services; development of a short list for a “Good-Practice” analysis • Phase 3: In-depth analysis of selected services with “Good Practice”- elements; examination of survey results; development of case studies • Geographical coverage: Mostly EU-27 and some overseas countries(USA, Japan, Australia, Canada) • Additional separate study for Switzerland • Support Services in the Field of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) for SMEs – A review (2008, on behalf of Swiss Federal Institute of IP)

  4. 279 services (Europe: 224) • Core Research Team: • Analysis • Guide-lines • Selection process Field work (by partner network) 72 services benchmarked Study IPR ExpertGroup Field work (by partner network) 15 services exhibiting “good practice” characteristics Results validation Results dissemination Study design and methodology

  5. Challenges encountered • Heterogeneity of service designs • Heterogeneity of institutional set-ups („enabling environment“) • Measurement of performance • Trade-off between a comparative benchmarking exercise and being specific enough to give meaningful recommendations • Training needs of interviewers, and project management to allow for consistent output

  6. Selection criteria for identifying relevant support services • Source of funding • Inclusion of only publicly funded services • SMEs as target group • Explicitly • Implicitly, if the service has significance for SMEs • Service design • Service targeted as a whole or in (analysable) parts at IPR • Degree of legal formality • Focus on registrable IPR (esp. patents) • Inclusion of other IPR with less legal formality, if a country does not have a high enough number of services targeting registrable IPR • Geographical coverage: national and/or regional  Another (informal) selection criterion in some (few) instances: willingness of the service provider to collaborate and provide information

  7. Benchmarking indicators (I) • Development and Design • Type and scope of preparatory activities • Time of preparation activities • ….. • Implementation • Budgets and resources used • Governance • Evidence of an effective administration • Existence of quality assurance mechanisms • Marketing activities employed • …

  8. Benchmarking indicators (II) • Performance • Existence and values of any performance measures • User up-take • User satisfaction • Number of filed patents with support from the service • Number of successful projects • .... • Assessment of added value/additionality • Assessment of impacts • Strengths and weaknesses • …

  9. Towards Good Practices: Selection criteria for the benchmarking phase • Clearness of the objectives stated • Clearness of the service design and service offerings • Scope of the service offerings • Level of innovation of the instruments employed • Take-up by SMEs and/or other available performance measures • Country context • Policy context

  10. Response rates for user survey in EU study

  11. A frequently found institutional set-up for a IPR support services offered by patent offices or PATLIBs Patent attorney • Chamberof commerce • Consultation & information • training Private Consultants - support in anything Single SME • National business/technology funding agency • start-up support • business growth support • innovation support programmes Innovation/RTDI suppport • Regional funding agency • Start up support • business growth support • Innovation support programmes • National R&D funding agency • R&D grants • Thematic programmes • Patent Office • Associated with filing of patents Uni-versity PIC IPR support

  12. Usage of different service providers Usage frequency of different types of service providers, firms in % Source: Blind, Cuntz, Köhler & Radauer, 2008 , n = 295

  13. IPR as a means to increase competitiveness?

  14. Behavioural additionality • Changes in/of attitude/behaviour with regard to IP issues, due to using a support service, Accompanied Patent Search service, Switzerland, SMEs in % • Service activities affect a range of IP-relevant aspects. Source: Radauer & Streicher 2008, n = 61

  15. Key quality factors for the provision of IPR services, user perceptions Source: Radauer et al. 2007 Aggregated answers for all services, Services considered = 15 n = 630

  16. Important criteria making up successful IPR services • Clear reasoning for existence for service packages (market failure argument), and thus division line to private industry offerings • Sound target system • Competence of staff • Integrated offerings (all IPR ‘out of one hand’) • Governance structures • Evaluations and quality control • Working cooperation structures with stakeholders from the innovation system • Ease of identification/Visibility • Timely delivery • NOT NECESSARILY: IPR Service in every locality

  17. Thank you For further enquiries contact alfred.radauer@technopolis-group.com The studies can be downloaded at EU study http://www.proinno-europe.eu/admin/uploaded_documents/NBAX07004ENC_web Swiss study: http://www.ige.ch/e/institut/documents/i1050101e.pdf Technopolis Group has offices in Amsterdam, Ankara, Brighton, Brussels, Paris, Stockholm, Tallinn and Vienna.